If we keep up the neocon/Likud policies we will be just like Israel.

The hilarity is that we would leave Iraq if it were secure...but it is the people that make it less secure that want us to leave

 

I disagree with your premise that the situation in Iraq compares to the situations faced in WWII and it's aftermath. These were sovereign countries and, in the case of the countries liberated, conquered countries, who all shared cultural, religious, and ethnic considerations with the United States and our Allies. Here, we share little with the Iraqi's in those areas. Hell, the Iraqi's, in large measure, have immense differences with each other. I just don't see any valid comparisons. Sorry.

 

Not true. Even if you discount France, Holland, Italy (where we similarly removed a dictator) etal, look at both Germany and Japan. We didn't share cultural or religious or ethnic considerations with Japan. Neither were conquered countries that we were liberating.

Again, I am only showing that the premise espoused that its inherently natural for anyone to fight against an outside force that kills civilians is incorrect. That is the only point I'm trying to achieve with the comparison, and it serves that function quite well. I'm not saying Iraqis are grateful like the French or Dutch, or Japanese or Germans, for example, because that obviously is not the case.

Why aren't they? Its not simply because they are experiencing civilian casualities. That's my point.

 

because my buddy sane took care of that answer for me.

 

The German people certainly share cultural, religious, and ethnic bonds with the United States. I think large numbers of Germans came to realize that Hitler, and his National Socialist Party, were a disaster for Germany, before the war ended. Someone like SJC could speak to that better than I. Germany, West Germany, certainly saw our country, and our allies, as the one thing between them and absorption by their ancient enemies, the Russians... aka, the USSR, a fate which, for all intents and purposes, befell East Germany.

Japan's people saw their Emporer as a god. They did as he asked, and he said what we needed him to, to save his throne.

Again, I just don't see the parallels.

 

No. I don't think it would be good if there was still violence in 10 years and we were still in Iraq in force. The opportunity for Iraqis to transition is there. We are providing the force if the people join wholeheartedly in the transition process. If, as some say, they want to fight it out in some winner-take-all tribal/civil war, we can't stop that forever.

In some places, like most of Eastern Europe, there was a peaceful transition from totalitarianism to democracy. In some places, like the Balkans, there wasn't. I hope the Iraqis get their **** together and take advantage of the opportunity they have in front of them. They couldn't overthrow Saddam themselves, even though they wanted to. His apparatus was simply too strong as we saw with his actions against the Kurds and against the Shiites after the first gulf war. If they blow it then they blow it. It'll be unfortunate but you can't say we didn't give them the chance.

 

Yes, they came to realize the new system was better than the old. For them and everyone else, despite the fact that we flattened WHOLE CITIES like Dresden and Hiroshima. Your reading of Japan is oversimplified, but the point is the same. Certainly if you child or spouse is killed you are going to be angry, but despite this, as shown in these two examples, people can move beyond their immediate loss to see the greater good, as you point out the Germans did.

Whether or not that will happen in Iraq we'll have to wait and see.

 

"oversimplified"? Hey, I'm not MacBeth, ready to whip out pages and pages of historical facts to make my case. Not that I couldn't. I just don't have the desire to be that verbose.

Come on. You know as well as I do that the reason the Japanese people chose to be "compliant" with our occupation was because of the Emperor. There had to be plenty of anger and resentment, or worse, felt towards the occupying power... us. After all, we were looking at astronomical casualties during an invasion, before Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought them to the deck of the Missouri. They restrained whatever temptations no doubt harbored in the hearts of many, I would guess, to strike at us, because the Emperor said to cooperate.

I stand by what I said about Germany. And it wasn't that they "discovered" that the "new system" was better... it was more a return to the system they already had, as a powerful European state, before the perversions of Hitler. Business and free enterprise were certainly no strangers to Germany, nor democracy.

 

Thank you for that. I never doubted your ability , but I certainly don't want you to turn into macbeth.

I think you underestimate the number of japanese that had doubts about the war from the beginning, and the effect MacArthur insisting the Emperor not be tried as a war criminal had. But that's ok. If you think that collateral damage will doom any intervention, then we can agree to disagree.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3652174.stm

Shooting missiles from a helicopter into a frickin crowd of civilians including children??? When did this become our military policy? Is this what we learned training w/ IDF? I sure as hell don't want my tax dollars paying for this bs. I don't need this kind of crap on my conscience. I'd rather just pay more for my gas.

 

I sincerely hope that many Japanese had doubts about the war, but I think the majority who did were those in government, and the military, who knew the most about international affairs and, in particular, this country. They were pushed out of positions of influence by the militarists, and those who thought to profit by the expansionism the militarists saw as Japan's divine right.

Funny that you should mention MacArthur and his decisions regarding the Emperor. It was exactly what I was thinking of when I made my post. MacArthur, in a masterstroke that was fought by some in high levels of our government, and that made some of our allies most unhappy, realized that by preserving the Emperor and his throne, and not humiliating him in front of the world and, most importantly, the Japanese people, that Hirohito would be able to maintain order by his unharmed presence and through his surrogates. It worked brilliantly. The fact that Hirohito was not on the deck of the Missouri was no accident.

There's no question that MacArthur was an egomaniac, and drove his superiors crazy, but the way he set up and governed post-war Japan was a work of genius. Sadly, I see no MacArthurs on the horizon.

 

I hope you don't think that it's just "intervention" that's the problem.
I mean, it's not like this was a humanitarian effort to remove Saddam?

First, preemptive war. WMD as root case? If not that...then ties to AQ. Fear mongering off 911. Disinformation. Deception. Thus "collateral damage" is being heaped upon those that were not directly tied to 911. For Empire? Feeding off the revenge factor?

It's starting to get a little blurry....

After a while, the "for the greater good" starts to wane. So, does "for good intentions." Throw in a little ME culture, anti-materialism, and religion. Then wham! You got yourself in one big pile of poop!

I mean, Hayes. How far will you go? How many nationals would you kill to achieve your goal? It's not like the enemy is cut-and-dry. Although, the Prez would like you to think so.

 

It was certainly one of the justifications for the war. Not THE justification obviously, but maybe it should have been. But I'm not sure what this gets you as far as this particular debate goes.

Sure, but what is 'after awhile?' If it goes 10 years of nonstop violence like glynch predicts, then certainly that will suck. How many Iraqis would we kill? Well, from what everyone keeps saying the radicals are still a small portion of the population and outside radicals, and really I don't care too much whether they eat it or not. The question that is more relevant is how many civilians get hurt before we pull out, or if more civilians would be hurt if we pull out. I've been saying that the intervention is a good thing because its not even coming close to approaching the saddam + sanctions toll on the iraqis. If it does then obviously we'd have to reconsider. Personally I'd like to see elections as soon as possible and/or a UN takeover.

 

New party urges non-Jews' expulsion
by Khalid Amayreh
Sunday 12 September 2004 10:54 AM GMT

Dozens of right-wing Israeli leaders have announced the creation of a new political party which founders say will be dedicated to the expulsion of millions of Muslims and Christians from Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

The party was launched in Jerusalem on Saturday night.

Taking part in the ceremony were many leaders of the officially outlawed but effectively tolerated Kach group such as Baruch Marzel and Hen Ben Elyahu.

Kach is a violent Jewish militia made up of Jewish activists who reject democracy and advocate the expulsion or, if necessary, annihilation of Arabs from what they call Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel).

According to some Jewish religious authorities, Eretz Yisrael encompasses mandatory Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus, and parts of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Turkey.

Since the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada or uprising four years ago, Kach terrorists have killed scores of Arab civilians.

Those caught by the Israeli authorities usually received symbolic or light prison sentences. The bulk of the perpetrators are allowed to remain at large.

Expulsion

According to Ben Elyaho, a co-founder of the new party, the expulsion of non-Jews from Israel would "resolve all of Israel's political, economic and social problems".

"Our party calls for cleansing the region extending from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean from the Goyem [derogatory for non-Jews] and thus guaranteeing a Jewish majority of no less than 90% throughout the Land of Israel," he said.

Most of the founders of the new party are affiliated with Kach and other similar groups.

Another prominent co-founder is Baruch Marzel, a colleague of Baruch Goldstein who in 1994 murdered 29 Arab worshipers who were praying at the Ibrahimi mosque in central Hebron.

Killer exalted

Following Goldstein's death at the hands of Arab survivors, Marzel and his fellow Kach activists eulogised him as a great "saint of the Torah".

Moreover, Marzel and his friends erected a memorial plaque made up of fine marble in the settlement of Kiryat Araba near Hebron "to immortalise" Goldstein's memory.

Eventually, the Israeli government of Ehud Barak, under pressure from the Meretz party, partially erased the structure in Kiryat Araba.

Kach was originally founded in the mid-1970s by Meir Kahana, an American rabbi, who preached that Judaism and democracy were incompatible and that Israel would have to choose either Judaism or democracy, but not both.

Kahana, who eventually became a member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, called for the expulsion of all Arabs from Israel.

Right-wing resurgence

Kach itself does not command widespread support in Israel. However, with Israeli society as a whole drifting to the right especially since the election of Ariel Sharon as prime minister more than three years ago, the movement has come to enjoy an influence far exceeding its actual size.

According to Professor Era Sharkansky of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Kach is trying to exploit the growing rightist opposition to the proposed Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to increase its following.

"Those people will not accept anything, they are against any settlement with the Palestinians involving territorial concessions. And they will threaten civil war in order to thwart Sharon's disengagement plan," he said.

Sharkansky suggested to Aljazeera.net that the current political environment in Israel was increasingly conducive to the growth of Kach, in light of the near takeover of the Likud by right-wing extremists who oppose the planned withdrawal from Gaza, the dismantling of Jewish settlements and the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

Sharkansky argued that Sharon might be trying to circumvent or neutralise the rightist opposition to his plan by getting the US to accept his other plan to annex large parts of the West Bank, including such settlements as Ariel, Ma'ali Adomim and Gush Etzion.

This, Sharon hopes, would desensitise right-wing opposition to the Gaza plan, even though the annexation of the West Bank settlements may kill any chance for the creation of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank.

Aljazeera
By Khalid Amayreh

You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...40BC803DE57.htm

----

and people say that Muslims are the only terrorists.

 

isn't that actually a syllogism?

 

This was his response:

Both you and Sane underestimate what I know about Arabs and the Muslim World.

Neither you or Sane gave an explanation of what happened to the concept of <i>Muslim Brotherhood</i> he was pushing earlier in that thread.

Since discussing Sudan and the concept of <i>Muslim Brotherhood</i> didn't interest you or Sane...........how about Pakistan and the concept of <i>Muslim Brotherhood</i>?

<center><b>Pakistan</b></center>
<a HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,1160790,00.html">Shia pilgrims gunned down: More than 40 Muslims die in Pakistan massacre</a>

<a HREF="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3028A722-AB5A-4DE8-A584-72EC840C7232.htm">Pakistan's religious faultline</a>


Perhaps discussing Muslim - Muslim violence in Pakistan doesn't interest you or Sane. Then we will shift back to the Middle East and the Arab World.

<hr color=green>
<center><b>The Sauds and Wahhabi Islam</b></center>

How about the discussing the destruction in Karbala roughly two centuries ago?

<a HREF="http://workmall.com/wfb2001/saudi_arabia/saudi_arabia_history_the_saud_family_and_wahhabi_islam_1500_1850.html">Saudi Arabia THE SAUD FAMILY AND WAHHABI ISLAM, 1500-1850</a>

Two centuries ago is too far in the past to discuss the concept of <i>Muslim Brotherhood</i>? No problem..........

<a HREF="http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/saudi.html">Saudi Arabia: Human Rights Developments</a>

<a HREF="http://www.saudiinstitute.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=39">Saudi Government’s Imams Prayed for the Destruction of the United States </a>

<a HREF="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5251989/site/newsweek/">The Saudi Trap</a>

<i>....How deeply does Wahhabism run through Saudi society? "Saudis are very pious, they are conservative, but they did not create this extremism," said Oteibi emphatically. "It's politics. This version of religion comes from the religious establishment. The regime supports the imams, judges and teachers. And people don't hear anything other than the imam's voices. People are barely aware that other, more tolerant forms of Islam exist."

The depth of this created culture of extremism is most evident regarding tolerance for non-Muslims—a crucial matter for the outside world. The Saudi religious establishment has until recently almost always referred to almost all non-Wahhabis (including the Shia, Sufis and all other Muslim sects) in derogatory terms........</i>

Perhaps discussing Saudi Arabia doesn't grab the attention of you or Sane.............no problem because there are other countries we can discuss in regards to the concept of <i>Muslim Brotherhood</i>.

<hr color=green>
<center><b>Syria</b></center>

<a HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/syria.html">Syria</a>

<i>President Assad of Syria is an Alawite Muslim while the majority of the population is Sunni. The latter regard the Alawites as heretics to Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood, Ikhwan, instituted activities against Assad and his Baath Party. The leadership of the Brotherhood consisted largely of Muslim clerics, the ulama, and its rank and file were mainly young Sunni bourgeois or urban poor.

The Brotherhood carried out a number of bomb attacks and assassinations against the government. Scores of Baath party workers were slain in their homes often together with their wives and children. On 26th June 1980, Ikhwan assassins attacked the "enemy of Allah", Assad himself. The next morning eight hundred Ikhwan in Palmyra prison were killed in their cells.

The Mukhabarrat, secret police of Assad rounded up those they considered were collaborating with the Brotherhood. A leading light, Shisakhi was found castrated, face burnt with acid and his eyes gouged out. Hundreds of Sunni were executed and even some Christians. Suspects were tortured to prepare lists of the Islamic underground. An apparatus to rip out fingernails was used and also the "Black Slave"-a hot metal skewer which burnt its way from the anus to the colon.1

The ancient city of Hama was the Ikhwan stronghold and Assad was determined to clean it out. On 2nd February 1982, five hundred troops moved into the old Barudi district. The Ikhwan were waiting for them and cut them down with machine-gun fire. Exhilarated with their early success they called for a jihad against Assad. Every mosque in Hama blared forth the call from its minarets. The guerrilla war was over; it was time for everyone to openly support the Brotherhood and drive out the "infidels".

The Ikhwan held a sizeable part of the town and even had its own hospital and women fighters. Some Syrian army units defected to them.


Assad called in the heavy weapons; many of the old alleyways were too narrow for tanks and so whole districts were flattened by artillery rather than engage the Brotherhood in hand to hand fighting.

Thousands of innocent people were killed in this way. Many more perished during the "mopping up". Buildings were dynamited without concern for the occupants. After that whole areas were levelled by bulldozers.

The death toll is estimated at over 20,000. "Syria's murderous suppression of the Hama uprising had much in common with the behaviour of the Nazis in occupied Europe".</i>

<hr color=green>

<center><b>Bangladesh</b></center>

If you and/or Sane would like to discuss the recent attack on Sheikh Hasina (Awami League) in Bangladesh and how it relates to the concept of <i>Muslim Brotherhood</i>.....we can do that.
<a HREF="http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501040906-689488,00.html">A Democracy is Shaken: In a divided nation, an attack against Bangladesh's opposition party leader marks a new low</a>


Perhaps we can discuss how this article relates to the concept of <i>Muslim Brotherhood</i>
<a HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3382931.stm">Bangladesh bans Islam sect books</a>

<hr color=green>
Enough on the Muslims in Asia...........we will go back to the Arab World....................

<b><center>Egypt</center></b>
<a HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3147598.stm">Sadat killing mastermind freed</a>

<hr color=green>
Overall, I have found <b>numerous exceptions</b> to the concept of <i>Muslim Brotherhood</i> that was being pushed in the other thread.

I will close with this nice read:
<a HREF="http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/occasionalpapers/Muslim%20on%20Muslim%20Violence.pdf">Muslim on Muslim Violence: What Drives It?</a>

 

That group is just as bad as Hamas. In fact they are just like Hamas, only instead of driving the Jews into the sea, they want to do it to the non-Jews. They should get the same treatment as Hamas gets.

 

Hitler killed substantially more people in his 12 years in power than Saddam killed in his 25 years of power. Also, in his time, Hitler was much more of a threat to the security of the United States than Saddam ever was.

 

And......what? This is irrelevant to this discussion. I didn't say Iraq was like WWII in every aspect, or even most aspects. I used it to disprove one specific argument.

 

Alrighty then! Thanks for explaining yourself!